Refuting Incompleteness and Undefinability

Abstract

Within the (Haskell Curry) notion of a formal system we complete Tarski's formal correctness: ∀x True(x) ↔ ⊢ x and use this finally formalized notion of Truth to refute his own Undefinability Theorem (based on the Liar Paradox), the Liar Paradox, and the (Panu Raatikainen) essence of the conclusion of the 1931 Incompleteness Theorem.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Why Propositions Cannot be Sets of Truth-supporting Circumstances.Scott Soames - 2008 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (3):267-276.
Game theoretical semantics and entailment.D. E. Over - 1981 - Studia Logica 40 (1):67 - 74.
Are truth values objects?Robert Ray - 1979 - Philosophical Studies 35 (2):199 - 211.
Circularity or Lacunae in Tarski’s Truth-Schemata.Dale Jacquette - 2010 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (3):315-326.
Was Tarski's Theory of Truth Motivated by Physicalism?Greg Frost-Arnold - 2004 - History and Philosophy of Logic 25 (4):265-280.
What Truth Depends on.Hannes Leitgeb - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (2):155-192.
Tarski.Benedict Eastaugh - 2017 - In Alex Malpass & Marianna Antonutti Marfori (eds.), The History of Philosophical and Formal Logic: From Aristotle to Tarski. London: Bloomsbury. pp. 293-313.
Truth-makers and Convention T.Jan Woleński - 2011 - Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Kevin Mulligan.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-01-17

Downloads
430 (#45,529)

6 months
60 (#78,872)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references